Another blatant Constitutional violation

[Uncensored2008]

So we are in agreement that a student reciting the Lord's Prayer at a Graduation Ceremony is not a violation of the Constituion...

Not only not in violation, but expressly protected by the Constitution.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If someone belongs to a religion that compels its followers to steal from others, are you going to say that kind of behavior should be allowed just because it is the basis of someone's religious beliefs?

Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

You can exercise your freedom of religion UNLESS doing so infringes on someone else's rights. Your religion doesn't give you free reign to do anything you want.[/SIZE][/FONT][/B]

What right does a person speaking words you oppose, infringe?

Your right not to hear things you don't like?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Sure - I admit to having a bias against organized religion. So what? Does that make me a bigot? Not any more than a Christian having a bias against an atheist make him/her a bigot. (I am not an atheist, BTW.)

I don't mind being accused of having a bias. We ALL have biases. I object to being called bigot. See the difference?

When you act to have the state silence the views of others who you disagree with - that is bigotry.

The bigot strongly believes that he is entitled to his own beliefs, and that others are likewise entitled to his beliefs. When you demand that the government use the implied threat of violence to force others not to express beliefs contrary to yours, that is bigotry.

 

[Montrovant]

Nope, you hide your bigotry around the veneer of "constitutionality." You could have indicated your disdain of religion without using vulgar words to describe it, but you didn't.

The current move when it comes to the 1st amendment and religion is hostility to religion, not neutrality towards it. The 1st amendment was never meant to prevent people from practicing their religion in public, which is what the current crop of asshole atheists (to discriminate them from non asshole atheists) is hellbent on trying to implement.

Again, if it was the Principal leading or saying a prayer, you have a point. If its a student then I don't see the issue. In fact, most progressives would admire the students rebellious spirit if it were for a topic such as AGW or gay rights. but because it was a prayer their panties all get bunched up.

Christian fundamentalists and conservatives in general, like to couch the First Amendment's Establishment Clause as being "hostile to religion," while ignoring the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause because it does not suit their purpose. Enforcement of the Establishment Clause is not being "hostile to religion." You may choose to characterize it as such, but it simply is not. All the Establishment Clause is doing, is preventing YOU from forcing YOUR religious views on me via the public sector. You can come come to my front door all you want and try to tell me I need religion, so long as you are acting in a private capacity. That's not violating anything except my personal space, and there are ways of handling that. Just don't try and use governmental platforms to do it.

A student at commencement, who chooses to inject religion into their talk, is a sticky point. Is he speaking for himself, or the school? Is the school deemed to be "behind" what he is saying? I don't know how this works in actual practice, but I think that most schools will want a preview of any valedictorian talk and will tell the valedictorian that religious references are off base. What happens when the valedictorian goes out on his own and ignores his instructions? I think it at least should let the school off the hook. They can't control a "rogue valedictorian." I think, most of the time, valedictorians will be smart enough to leave religion out of it. They should.

Show me where the studen'ts speech forced you to pay a tithe, or recognize a specific religion as the official US religion, or made you join the church he belonged to. That is ESTABLISHMENT of a national religion. Allowing someone to invoke God during their valerditorian speech, as long as the school did not FORCE the person to do it is in no whay endorsement or establishment of religion, just like allowing people to put a manger in a public space is not endorsement of relgion, or having a cross on public land is not endorsement of religion. Especially if these displays are paid for 100% in private.

Again, the overall goal is the removal of religous expression from the public commons, so basically Atheism becomes the de facto established religion.

Other than atheism not being a religion, and depending on how you define it, wouldn't there need to be some expression that there is no god for atheism to be the de facto established religion? In other words, the fact that a religion is not expressed from the public commons does not indicate an expression that such a religion is untrue. So preventing any religion from being expressed from the public commons does not say they are all untrue.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Other than atheism not being a religion, and depending on how you define it, wouldn't there need to be some expression that there is no god for atheism to be the de facto established religion? In other words, the fact that a religion is not expressed from the public commons does not indicate an expression that such a religion is untrue. So preventing any religion from being expressed from the public commons does not say they are all untrue.

Totalitarianism silences all views save the one mandated by the state - which is what you seem to support.

Liberty is the free expression of views with no interference - neither in support of, or prohibiting, by the state.

Liberty is abhorred by so many here.

 

[Montrovant]

Other than atheism not being a religion, and depending on how you define it, wouldn't there need to be some expression that there is no god for atheism to be the de facto established religion? In other words, the fact that a religion is not expressed from the public commons does not indicate an expression that such a religion is untrue. So preventing any religion from being expressed from the public commons does not say they are all untrue.

Totalitarianism silences all views save the one mandated by the state - which is what you seem to support.

Liberty is the free expression of views with no interference - neither in support of, or prohibiting, by the state.

Liberty is abhorred by so many here.

Interesting extrapolation from my post. All I was doing was questioning whether a lack of religious expression equates to an atheistic expression. To put it another way, nothing does not equal something. No view does not equal a view.

How you get from that to me being totalitarian is a mental stretch I'm not going to attempt to justify. It's especially strange considering I did not offer an opinion on any whether government should restrict religious expression in any instance, only on whether such a restriction constitutes and endorsement of atheism.

 

[George Costanza]

Other than atheism not being a religion, and depending on how you define it, wouldn't there need to be some expression that there is no god for atheism to be the de facto established religion? In other words, the fact that a religion is not expressed from the public commons does not indicate an expression that such a religion is untrue. So preventing any religion from being expressed from the public commons does not say they are all untrue.

Totalitarianism silences all views save the one mandated by the state - which is what you seem to support.

Liberty is the free expression of views with no interference - neither in support of, or prohibiting, by the state.

Liberty is abhorred by so many here.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . "

Please explain to me how "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is a silencing of religion.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Interesting extrapolation from my post. All I was doing was questioning whether a lack of religious expression equates to an atheistic expression. To put it another way, nothing does not equal something. No view does not equal a view.

When the implied violence of the state is invoked to silence all views on the existence of a deity or deities, save one - then we cannot deny that view is the established ecumenical view of the state, e.g. the state religion.

How you get from that to me being totalitarian is a mental stretch I'm not going to attempt to justify. It's especially strange considering I did not offer an opinion on any whether government should restrict religious expression in any instance, only on whether such a restriction constitutes and endorsement of atheism.

Again, the demand that the state employ it's implied force to silence all views save one, is totalitarian in nature.

 

[Uncensored2008]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . "

Please explain to me how "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is a silencing of religion.

As you prohibit the free exercise on that which you consider sacred ground - ground owned by our government masters - you silence all religious views save the state religion of Atheism.

Basically, I am the state thy master, thou shalt have no gods before the state.

 

[Montrovant]

Interesting extrapolation from my post. All I was doing was questioning whether a lack of religious expression equates to an atheistic expression. To put it another way, nothing does not equal something. No view does not equal a view.

When the implied violence of the state is invoked to silence all views on the existence of a deity or deities, save one - then we cannot deny that view is the established ecumenical view of the state, e.g. the state religion.

How you get from that to me being totalitarian is a mental stretch I'm not going to attempt to justify. It's especially strange considering I did not offer an opinion on any whether government should restrict religious expression in any instance, only on whether such a restriction constitutes and endorsement of atheism.

Again, the demand that the state employ it's implied force to silence all views save one, is totalitarian in nature.

And if the discussion were centered on the idea that there is no god being promoted, you'd be right. However, it was about whether not allowing religious expression constitutes atheistic expression. Not talking about god does not equate to a disbelief in god, just as not talking about a specific religion doesn't equate to a disbelief in that particular religion.

It is possible to prohibit the expression of certain beliefs without endorsing their opposites.

This has nothing to do with the morality or constitutionality of such restriction, of course.

 

[martybegan]

Christian fundamentalists and conservatives in general, like to couch the First Amendment's Establishment Clause as being "hostile to religion," while ignoring the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause because it does not suit their purpose. Enforcement of the Establishment Clause is not being "hostile to religion." You may choose to characterize it as such, but it simply is not. All the Establishment Clause is doing, is preventing YOU from forcing YOUR religious views on me via the public sector. You can come come to my front door all you want and try to tell me I need religion, so long as you are acting in a private capacity. That's not violating anything except my personal space, and there are ways of handling that. Just don't try and use governmental platforms to do it.

A student at commencement, who chooses to inject religion into their talk, is a sticky point. Is he speaking for himself, or the school? Is the school deemed to be "behind" what he is saying? I don't know how this works in actual practice, but I think that most schools will want a preview of any valedictorian talk and will tell the valedictorian that religious references are off base. What happens when the valedictorian goes out on his own and ignores his instructions? I think it at least should let the school off the hook. They can't control a "rogue valedictorian." I think, most of the time, valedictorians will be smart enough to leave religion out of it. They should.

Show me where the studen'ts speech forced you to pay a tithe, or recognize a specific religion as the official US religion, or made you join the church he belonged to. That is ESTABLISHMENT of a national religion. Allowing someone to invoke God during their valerditorian speech, as long as the school did not FORCE the person to do it is in no whay endorsement or establishment of religion, just like allowing people to put a manger in a public space is not endorsement of relgion, or having a cross on public land is not endorsement of religion. Especially if these displays are paid for 100% in private.

Again, the overall goal is the removal of religous expression from the public commons, so basically Atheism becomes the de facto established religion.

Other than atheism not being a religion, and depending on how you define it, wouldn't there need to be some expression that there is no god for atheism to be the de facto established religion? In other words, the fact that a religion is not expressed from the public commons does not indicate an expression that such a religion is untrue. So preventing any religion from being expressed from the public commons does not say they are all untrue.

The main issue is the 1st amendment places no such ban on expressing religion on the public commons, despite what people hostile to religion want it to. What it prohibits is government establishment of said religion, which has nothing to do with individuals expressing said religions, but everything with tithing, church membership as a litmus test, and mandatory church membership.

Our current crop of anti-theists have been using the courts to attempt to inhibit a persons ability to practice thier religion publicly, and to force the government to not be neutral, but hostile to religion, and those who practice it.

 

[George Costanza]

The main issue is the 1st amendment places no such ban on expressing religion on the public commons, despite what people hostile to religion want it to. What it prohibits is government establishment of said religion, which has nothing to do with individuals expressing said religions, but everything with tithing, church membership as a litmus test, and mandatory church membership.

I think it has to do with the PLATFORM. An individual can stand on a public street and spout religion all he wants, and that's fine. When he's doing it as part of a public school program, in front of a scheduled event (in this case, commencement), that changes things.

The issue of what happens when a student violates the program provided for him by the school (not to mention religious matters) and injects religious matters on his own, outside of the scope of the prepared text, is another matter.

 

[martybegan]

The main issue is the 1st amendment places no such ban on expressing religion on the public commons, despite what people hostile to religion want it to. What it prohibits is government establishment of said religion, which has nothing to do with individuals expressing said religions, but everything with tithing, church membership as a litmus test, and mandatory church membership.

I think it has to do with the PLATFORM. An individual can stand on a public street and spout religion all he wants, and that's fine. When he's doing it as part of a public school program, in front of a scheduled event (in this case, commencement), that changes things.

The issue of what happens when a student violates the program provided for him by the school (not to mention religious matters) and injects religious matters on his own, outside of the scope of the prepared text, is another matter.

It shouldnt change things when it comes to a commencement speech. The principal cannot invoke a prayer as he is a government actor. A student is a customer of said school (and an of age one at that) and shouldnt be held to the scrutiny of a government actor.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And if the discussion were centered on the idea that there is no god being promoted, you'd be right. However, it was about whether not allowing religious expression constitutes atheistic expression.

The men who penned the bill of rights grasp that the guarantee of liberty are asserted rights.

While the atheistic left views it as their right to silence speech that offends them, the BoR actually falls in the other direction, stating that speech is protected EVEN IF IT OFFENDS AN ATHEIST.

I grant that many would be more comfortable silencing views that the disagree with, as you have done regarding religious expression, but the fact that this directly violates the 1st makes it an act I must strongly oppose, as a Libertarian and as free citizen.

While the left often states that "Christians may speak in churches," this is just the opposite of the truth. You are free to open an Atheist church and prohibit ideas that are contrary to your faith within those confines - but in public, your views hold no more weight than those of Christians, Buddhists, or Satanists. All have the right under the Constitution to express their faith. That Atheist have gained the support of corrupt judges, notwithstanding.

Not talking about god does not equate to a disbelief in god, just as not talking about a specific religion doesn't equate to a disbelief in that particular religion.

It is possible to prohibit the expression of certain beliefs without endorsing their opposites.

This has nothing to do with the morality or constitutionality of such restriction, of course.

Violations of the 1st to appease a particular ecumenical view is the establishment of that view as the state religion.

 

[YWN666]

Which constitutional right, of yours, is being violated by hearing someone pray?

Contrary to popular belief, you do NOT have the right to not be offended.

Once again, it is NOT about being offended. As I said a few times before, I have no problem with a student saying a prayer out in the hallway outside of the official school ceremony. The right that is being violated is my right to have a government that does not favor, promote or endorse religion.

Can you quote the article of our beloved Constitution that assures you of that right?

So the only rights guaranteed by the Constitution are specifically mentioned in the Constitution? Show me where it says in the Constitution that we have a right to privacy.

 

[YWN666]

So some student mentioning God or praying during his valerdictorian speech merits thugs escorting him off stage?

If you are so offended by prayer that you cant hear it for 2 minutes, i suggest you get a spine.

Meanwhile if he wanted to spout about things progressives actually like, he/she can drone on for hours.

Thugs?

No.

Security?

Yeah.

If he started chanting a Muslim prayer..I am pretty sure you would have wanted him shot.

Not at all.
ALL religions have rights.

But I can go one better......

To the OP:
If the student was orating on the wonders of homosexuality and abortion would you be so adamantly against his speech?
Those things go against my religion, yet I would not fault the kid for speaking of these issues

Bad analogy. Homosexuality and abortion are not religions.

 

[YWN666]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

He was not an agent of the government. He was exercising his rights as a private citizen. A private citizen reciting the Lord's Prayer, in no way indicates the establishment of a State religion regardless of where he was.

The first amendment is numero uno for a reason.

There are reasonable limits to our constitutional freedoms and this is one of them.

What are some others?

The "fire in the theater" limitation to our freedom of speech

 

[YWN666]

Exactly which civil liberty are you defending? Be specific.

The right to be free of government endorsed religion.

Please explain exactly how government endorsed religion in the case you cited?

How many times times do I have to answer the same question?

 

[Uncensored2008]

The "fire in the theater" limitation to our freedom of speech

Does not actually exist....

Standard Disclaimer: This font thing is stupid and pointless - but when in the ghetto......

 

[YWN666]

First, stop using bold font, it makes you look like more of an idiot that you actually are.

I like using it because it differentiates the response from the original comment and you don't get to tell me how I should or should not post.



How many times do I have to say this? It is not about being offended. It is about constitutional rights. In case that doesn't sink in, I'll have another repeat standing by.



I was just pointing pout the silliness of your claims that you are not subject to the decisions of a US court. Are you also exempt from criminals laws? How does that work exactly?




Have you? Where?

you based your position on the court, and assume your position is the "right" one.

Plessey V Fergueson is the best example. and tons of people disagree with citizens united.

That decision reflected the way people were thinking back in 1896, not 2013. That was the point.